firefandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:List of apparatus component manufacturers
Can we add this page to the apparatus section drop down?--Sodacreek343 (talk) 23:49, May 6, 2017 (UTC) :Not exactly sure what you're referring to...do you mean a category? Uzbek (talk) 15:20, May 7, 2017 (UTC) If you go to the Apparatus tab, you will see Current manufacturers, defunct manufacturers custom chassis and dealers. This list is for all the bits and bobs that go into building an apparatus, but most of these companies don't build complete apparatus as their primary business. Seems like it would fit under the apparatus section though. Hope that makes sense. --Sodacreek343 (talk) 21:07, May 7, 2017 (UTC) I noticed that there were pages for things like the telesqurt, but it is not easy to find them or see what has been done. Again with the telesqurt that particular item has a page, but the parent Snorkel and sibling Squrt doesn't. I thought a list of the manufacturers that make the common items used by many builders seemed like a good idea.--Sodacreek343 (talk) 21:11, May 7, 2017 (UTC) ::Sure, but maybe it should be a header category that would include the categories for custom chassis and aerial devices, which is what Telesqurt is listed under. It could also include a category for pump manufacturers, etc. It's a great idea, but should include those other categories somehow. (Edit - on second thought, aerial devices wouldn't make sense, since that category is for the devices themselves, not the companies. But outfits like Memco, LTI, etc. could maybe go under component manufacturers instead of apparatus manufacturers. Uzbek (talk) 02:08, May 8, 2017 (UTC) :::One other note - there was already a TCM page. The names would work best with just the short version (e.g. Grove) which would then redirect to a page with the full company name (e.g. Grove Manufacturing) rather than shortname / longname. That way you can cover both. Thanks, Uzbek (talk) 01:57, May 8, 2017 (UTC) That is basically what gave me the idea, I was running into pages that were just kind of there but no way to see that they were there. The apparatus builders pages are pretty clear, but it gets confusing when you get to the bits and pieces since there isn't a list, or at least I didn't see one and you end up with multiple pages under slightly different titles. I did include a column for the type of manufacturer to help identify manufactures by what they provide, pumps, aerials, chassis etc figuring that while most focus on one type of item, there will certainly be a few out there not easy squeezed into one list if there was a separate list for each component type. As far as names go, I agree the common name would be the best as the company names often have slight variations over the years. Taking ALF as an example, it had at least 9 variations in the corporate name since the company was first formed. I can go back and adjust some of my more recent additions before they have to many links back. I haven't found a specific page to help with naming conventions, preferred page layout etc, pretty much just looking for something similar and following that format. I didn't see TCM, but honestly I didn't look too hard as I didn't expect to see it with the custom chassis since the rest were very specific chassis, not manufacturers pages.--Sodacreek343 (talk) 05:52, May 9, 2017 (UTC) It seemed that manufacturers / defunct manufacturers were for those who build complete apparatus. The component manufacturers could go onto those two lists as appropriate if that was not the intent of those lists. --Sodacreek343 (talk) 06:00, May 9, 2017 (UTC) ::I'm fine either way, so long as we can set up a good hierarchy. There will probably be a few that blur the lines a bit, but they can always go under more than one category. And you're right, I haven't done much in the way of instructional stuff. Even a fire department naming page would be helpful, but with the different variations would probably be a good one. Props, btw for the well-written histories. That's terrific work. Uzbek (talk) 13:13, May 9, 2017 (UTC) Thanks, this is really turning into quite a handy resource. It is really nice how locals can flesh out the details of some of the smaller regional companies that could be easily over looked.--Sodacreek343 (talk) 06:11, May 10, 2017 (UTC)